I'm not a racist, but I am...

This forum is full of it, but it's all true. The facts are there. Maybe there is a little hyperbole, sure black people can become doctors, fly planes etc... I'm a reasonable human being, I was raised in a liberal environment. I have bullied before, but never been racist and I see bigotry as immature, however I can't escape the fact that they are indeed very unusual looking.

http://unicast.org/forums/forum.php?forum_id=1

"golly, niggers are hideous with their buck teeth, black skin and brillo heads. Egads."

Just do a google search for skull shapes of different races and albino black people... CAucasian and mongoloid skulls are about the same and both these races have obviously exceeded negrito races in culture and civilisation. Even the obscure native americans constructed early civilisations. Their hunter gatherers tribes only existed due to their isolation, deprived of the circumstnaces that allow for agrarian civilisation. Given another 1000 years after the SPanish arrived, and the Gulf of Mexico would be like the Mediteranean circa 1000 B.C..

Though I can't say the same for black civilisations, they were not isolated, theywere exposed to the Egyptians, who were arabic, im not one of these nuts who thinks they are white. I really am not a racist or even a far right conservative...

I can't contain what i think anymore and I shouldn't be afraid of expressing my thoughts. They do look so animal like, it is as if they are a relic from evolution before human civilisation. In fact that's what they are, the only tribal systems outside of sub-saharran africa left by around 1300 were in areas which didn't have much food. Yet in the rich jungles of africa they still lived in the stone age, never utilising the wide range of plants there.

I think the out of africa theory is correct and that blacks haven't evolved much whilst caucasians and mongoloids have had to deal with the ice age.

How should I approach these facts rationally? Liberals say I should just ignore them, conservatives say I should become a whtie supremacist nut. Surely there is another way? Surely there is a way to get society to accept these facts without sinking into depths of paranoia and stupidity.

whut u restin me for?

I think the thoery is valid as a testament to the often un-reported careless of the scientific community.

Correct, it's a theory, and one which is still being debated. Indeed, more recent studies don't seem to support it. So why do you go around claiming it as fact, like in >>133:

It was European carelessness that unleashed AIDS upon Africa and the world.

The idea that HIV comes from having sex with monkeys is idiotic and totally unproven.

On the other hand, being bitten by one isn't.

Where you and your lot constantly fail is over-presentation and emphasis on physical appearence. This and the percieved differences in culture is the entire basis for race, while race is still not defined genetically. Until you define-provide proof of race genetically and define what intelligence is a priori...the entire idea of the co-relation between race and intellect is moot.

You call yourself a truthist? Truthist isn't even a fucking word. And the truth you claim to serve is by no means absolute. What you have sir, is a belief. Haplotypes, genetics...I mean when it comes to the over-all development of a human being...environment is much, MUCH more important. But you ignore this out of spite and in favor of smaller, more convientant facts. Neverminding what those facts actually imply about your perception of human evolution (a very simplistic view).

This is why no one would dare challenge my assertions about the effect an intellect-retardant culture or society on your precious Ashkanazi Jews. Because it shatters the idea that a uneducated Jew will ALWAYS score higher than a educated blacks or latinos.

Basically- even if it is true that ALL blacks are the neanderthals you're trying to paint them out to be- it doesn't matter. They are still apart of mankind and as humans we have been ingenious in that every act since our reign over the planet has been the outright defiance of the laws of nature.

Like I said, I don't care if you believe me or not because you are ignorant. You lack the cognitive functions to look at the human speicies as a whole. You lack the discipline it takes to question a percieved truth. You haven't done any reasearch as to actually WHY Europe dominates. (Read: Guns, Germs, and Steel) And your type of ignorance isn't to be changed. It's to be used for the benefit of the truly intelligent.

NOW GTFO, WHORE

>>160

I'm not mixing "you two" up. For all I know, you are the same person. It's not hard to type *anything* into the name field.

My address to >>144 is >>149 - Why do you constantly accuse me of building straw men when you've been literally building your elaborate shit-work scarecrows out of shed pubic hair? LOL, you think if you keep repeating the same thing, you're going to eventually trick someone into thinking that you've got a living, breathing argument?

>>162

I apologise for that, I shouldn't have expressed as fact. That was not my intention. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that HIV was created out of the...ugh...sexual union of a man and a monkey. That's just fucking stupid.

>>165
For all I know, you are the same person.

For all you know. Which you don't. So just address the points in >>144, instead of making guessed references to other posts.

And your so-called "address" refutes nothing in >>144. Indeed, by your very own words you admit you were wrong. Here:
given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests
my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ.

If genetics is involved, then "given equal conditions" the two children won't score the same for a large number of tests.

This is why no one would dare challenge my assertions about the effect an intellect-retardant culture or society on your precious Ashkanazi Jews.

What the hell? I'm the person who brought up the Ashkenazi jews, but the rest of that entire rant seems about issues I never raised. "Truthist"? Some other guy. Or maybe not, but you don't know that.

Stop raging at a mob, it makes you look like an complete dolt. We don't all believe the same thing. If you mix us all up, no wonder you think we're all crazy.

Or maybe we are all crazy, but not as nuts as you.

shitsuxsaged, idiot at keyboard.

>>168

That's because I wasn't fucking talking to you. I understand the advantage to not identifying yourself to your opponent, but pointing out the obvious ("Some other guy" LOL, NO SHIT, LOLZ) makes you look like a jackass fuckwit moron.


|If genetics is involved, then "given equal conditions" the two children won't score the same for a large number of tests.

Sorry, that "if-then" is exactly where I draw the line. Say that genetics affects intelligence- fine. But I come from the general school of thought that when it comes to intelligence and intelligence testing it is nuture that would create the differences in scores- not genetics. The overall affect is so small that it is not something that one should build the prejudice of Blacks not becoming philosophers, pioneers in civilization around. (Yeah, I know YOU didn't say that, but my point still stands)

There's more and less-contested evidence that culture, society and education continuously trumps whatever so-called path genetics lays out. Explain to me savants, or idiot savants. What role does genetics play with their intelligence and how precisely do you gauge that intelligence?

Until you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, you have no solid grounds for your claims.

END AND SAGED.

it is nuture that would create the differences in scores- not genetics.

In other words, genetics makes no difference. How do you reconcile that with this:
my general belief is that while genetics is involved- environment is more prevalent in enhancing ones IQ.

Obviously, you believe genetics is not involved in any significant way, or it would make an impact. How do you reconcile this against the numerous twin studies? How can you be certain that genetics plays such a minor role? How can you say that when you claim that nature versus nurture is false?

END AND SAGED.

Translation: I am 15; hear me roar.

| How do you reconcile this against the numerous twin studies?

With the numerous twin studies that have stated to the contrary.

"Farber (1981) also argued that there are the degrees of imperfect separation between the twins so that heritability estimates range from .14 to .67."

There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.

IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.

| How can you be certain that genetics plays such a minor role?

Because the role that nuture plays is more prevalent. If genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.

>>172

Moar like: I am 24 and tired of arguing with gay pedofaggot fake Genelogists college students (LOLZ!) over the internets.

OH SHI-

C-C-C-C-C-COMBO SAGE

Farber (1981)

An older book, which couldn't include the Minnesota study. The prior study I noted is newer, and a significant milestone in the field. Find something that contradicts that instead.

Some monozygotic twins were raised apart, and effects of socioeconomic status were taken into account. Despite this there is a strong correlation between genetic similarity and their scores on IQ and WAIS-R.

heritability estimates range from .14 to .67.

0.14-0.67 is not 0.0. This contradicts your claim.

You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.

Doesn't this detract from your point? You claim that heredity has no significant role to play, yet the you equally claim that you can't make inferences. So how do you know it isn't significant?

Who cares if it's an older book?  The results still differ from the Minnesota study. What difference does it make if from 1981 or 2001? Doesn't change the results and it doesn't change that your stats and other Bell Curve, Pioneer Funded reasearch blantant ignores similar studies that have been done since.

Ok, that's it, I'm pretty much getting very tired of repeating myself- so it's copy and paste time.

| You claim that heredity has no significant role to play, yet the you equally claim that you can't make inferences. So how do you know it isn't significant?

[] The role that nuture plays is more prevalent. If genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.

[] There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.


[] IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.

You can ask again and again and again, my answer will not change. I'm not going to magically conform to the idea that genetics is MORE important than environment nor the idea that blacks are genetically inferior until-

"you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, and proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ you have no solid grounds for your claims."

and "you acknowledge that your basis for genetic IQ is based on a test that measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot."

I noticed that you glared over the savant question. Autism is genetic as well- and yet you've got people with enough intelligence to masterfully execute certian skills that higher IQ individuals can't. How do you measure *that*?

Oh well, guess I'll just keep repeating myself until you answer.

I'm not going to magically conform to the idea that genetics is MORE important than environment nor the idea that blacks are genetically inferior until-

That was never in debate. Reread >>144 a few times, and point out where I laid claim that blacks will score lower, nor that they are inferior. Did you even read what I wrote? This is right there at the very end.

What is in debate is your assertion that "given equal conditions- a black child and a white child will score the same on any wide ranging IQ tests". Again, this is similar to what John Watson claimed. No, not all people are equal, and given the exact same education, upbringing, and opportunities, it's unlikely they'll score the same. Or maybe they will, but how do you know?

The role that nuture plays is more prevalent.

Oh, so now you acknowledge that genes have a role to play?

I noticed that you glared over the savant question.

I would have thought it supports heredity, particularly in the idiot savant case. Are you claiming that an idiot savant studies an inhuman amount of <whatever>? Some of them can do things even bright but normal people cannot.

Since we're on the topic of examples, if I gave you a down syndrome baby, do you think you could turn him or her into a world-recognized expert on some medical topic given the correct environment?

guess I'll just keep repeating myself until you answer.

These points are either all fluff, since they have nothing to do with my stance, or they've already been dealt with, but you just didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. I even quoted in my last post one of lines you just repeated, for crying out loud.

You're skimming. Badly.

I forgot this:

What difference does it make if from 1981 or 2001?

Simple: when a flaw is found in a study, future studies attempt to avoid that flaw (or remedy it). Science builds upon itself.

>>154
I'm stunned by the power of your arguments

>>157
Wait, is there any difference between black and black in Spanish (negro)? (I'm genuinely interested. I think there are none, and obviously, in Spanish there's only one word.)

lol this is the ultimate racism vs anti-racism site

i think racism is winin though, but i don't think they have much of a case for genocide

>>176
>>177

| Or maybe they will, but how do you know?

And how do *you* know they won't? Genetics? MY contention is that even if they don't score the same- it is more likely that it would have LESS to do with genetics and MORE to due with a environment. This is why I say that Genetics, while playing role, overall plays a *very* small- almost insignificant role when compared to the role nuture plays. My opinion isn't going to change.

Also, there was no "flaw" found in that study. Am I supposed to believe that just because YOU say their was, seeing as how your entire argument hinges on this?

| Are you claiming that an idiot savant studies an inhuman amount of <whatever>?

I'm claiming that the way we gauge IQ doesn't explain savants. There are still many things about intelligence that we simply do. not. know.

| These points are either all fluff, since they have nothing to do with my stance.

I don't care about your stance. My response is to the overall assertion that blacks and other non-white, non-asian racism are inherantly inferior genetically. You asked me why I think given equal opportunities a black and white person would score about the same on an IQ test and I told you. Regardless, even if in fact they *don't* score the same that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY means that the score difference is from genetics. Are you understanding me, now? Genetics are a pin-prick when compared to nurture.

WHY DO I THINK THIS?


[] IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.

You keep coming back to the same ol' shit, we keep going in circles with this. There's no test to glean which parts of intelligence is genetic or nurture so until that's dealt with the idea unfounded based solely on hypothetics.

Again:


"you hammer out the existence of genetic race and an a priori definition of intelligence, and proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ you have no solid grounds for your claims."

and "you acknowledge that your basis for genetic IQ is based on a test that measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot."

And how do *you* know they won't?

Given the research, I think that's a reasonable conclusion. Even the book you noted supports my stance. But that's besides the point: you were the person that stated as fact that they'd score the same. Furthermore, it's obvious you still haven't properly read >>144, because otherwise you'd realize you're arguing against nothing again.

MY contention is that even if they don't score the same- it is more likely that it would have LESS to do with genetics and MORE to due with a environment.

My point was never that genes had the major role - just that they have a role.

Also, there was no "flaw" found in that study.

a) How do you know? By the way, it was a book.
b) In any case, I wasn't talking about Farber's book, I was talking about prior twin studies that Farber's book used. Do you think future twin studies wouldn't take into account weaknesses she noted?

I'm claiming that the way we gauge IQ doesn't explain savants.

Intelligence/Aptitude/blah tests are measurements. They don't explain anything. Does my speedometer explain why my car moves the speed it does?

My response is to the overall assertion that blacks and other non-white, non-asian racism are inherantly inferior genetically.

How can you give a response if you don't care or understand my stance? Ever seen children parallel talk, or argue past each other?

Furthermore, I don't see anything about black inferiority anywhere in >>144.

Regardless, even if in fact they *don't* score the same that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY means that the score difference is from genetics.

Of course not.

Genetics are a pin-prick when compared to nurture.

The jury is out on that, although it looks like it's quite a bit more than a pin-prick.

There's no test to glean which parts of intelligence is genetic or nurture so until that's dealt with the idea unfounded based solely on hypothetics.

No, isolating variables (large samples, double-blind, etc), manipulating/monitoring the independent variable (genetic similarity), and monitoring the response (IQ, WAIS, etc), you can make a reasonable deduction.

a priori definition of intelligence

We have to use some definition, or the word means nothing. Would you call a medical expert more intelligent than a truck driver? How about a large number of them?

This all ignores things like creativity and social intelligence, but then again, people with high characteristics here don't become truck drivers either. There's also the observation that more intelligence people excel in multiple fields of endeavour; a population of medical experts probably can play more instruments than a population of truck drivers.

proof of genetics absolute sway over IQ

A claim never made.

measure NURTURES EFFECT on IQ- rendering your slant towards genetics completely moot

IQ doesn't measure nurture's effect alone. Remember the nature versus nurture debate? IQ is just one possible measure of intelligence; what causes that particular score is outside its scope.

| My point was never that genes had the major role - just that they have a role.

And my point is that the role is insignifcant *when compared* to the role of nurture.

| The jury is out on that, although it looks like it's quite a bit more than a pin-prick.

Obviously, I disagree. It's my observation that the environment has more of a control over IQ than genetics. If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else. This isn't even about facts anymore- this about a difference of opinion and a difference of interpetation of the evidence that even the scientific community ITSELF hasn't resolved.

"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy. There's no proof- so I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it? LOL, OK.

| No, isolating variables (large samples, double-blind, etc),

IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact. Why, you ask?

| IQ doesn't measure nurture's effect alone. Remember the nature versus nurture debate? IQ is just one possible measure of intelligence; what causes that particular score is outside its scope.

....because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture. There is no "genetic IQ test" only a nurture test. So your stats? BASED ON NURTURE. More to the point- they don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores. But from the nature of the test *themselves* we can make certain assertions as to how that person's intelligence was NURTURED.

| you were the person that stated as fact that they'd score the same.

What I find funny is your desperation to expose this as some untruth as if it's going to prove you right, or change my opinion on the nature/nurture dynamic when it comes to intelligence. Obviously they wouldn't score *precisely* the same. But I think that provided that they study the same- under the same teacher- same study habits- same nutrition- environment etc...that they would score within the same range.

Regardless, even if they didn't- there's no way to tell if that is because of genetics or not. Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_.  

Frankly, it doesn't matter what >>144 says. The "white/blacks score score the same" comment was a response to the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent and unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk. 

Shall we continue?

>>183
Except that no race was "nurtured" to construct civilisation, yet the black race failed miserably at this. What is this indicative of? Up until 1400 AD blacks had a minimal amount of hostility from invaders, compared to the invasions of the middle east by the Mongols and Timur, colonisation was a momma's tea party. Why did they fail?

Despite your fallacious attempts to thwart history they never had a civilisation that was destroyed by whites, the Mali and Songhai if anything took more heat from their arab neighbours. Once again nothing compared to the wars the arabs experienced. If they did have a civilisation rivalling the more intelligent races (10 million square miles of goat herders doesn't rival 5 million square miles of intensive farmland, castles, walled towns and cathedrals) why is there no archaelogical evidence left. Even the attempts by the spanish to destroy all evidence of the Aztecs failed. You can hardly walk through Mootxico without bumping into an ancient statue of a serpent!

I await your attempt to dance around these facts.

And my point is that the role is insignifcant *when compared* to the role of nurture.

Your basis for that assertion?

If you can make "observations" w/o absolutely empirical evidence- then so can anyone else.

The Minnesota twins study seems empirical to me. The compilation of studies that Farber made for a book are empirical too. Do you think they just pulled numbers out of thin air?

"That book agree with me." - ok, whatever you say buddy.

It does. Like I said: 0.14-0.67 is not 0.0.

IN *YOUR* OPINION. It's not fact.

Isolation of variables is my opinion? This is the scientific process. Evidence accumulates, theories adjust, confidence increases. Of course the theory can be wrong, that's why confidence plays a role.

...because IQ test themselves are geared toward observations of progress that can only be made by nuture.

Progress which is also influenced by a person's ability to learn. The effects of nature and nurture are intertwined, right?

hey don't AT ALL gauge the revelence of genetics on those scores.

No, they don't. Reread my last post, please.

But I think that provided that they study the same- under the same teacher- same study habits- same nutrition- environment etc...that they would score within the same range.

Possibly. Then again, that depends on the role heredity plays.

Because IQ test scores you, basically, on what your learned _from your environment_. 

Ah... yes and no. On the one hand you can't study for an IQ test, although you can certainly practice. On the other, environment most certainly has a large effect. But then again, your ability to learn affects your intelligence, so this argument is another red herring.

the assertion that blacks are genetically less intelligent

A possibility, although if it were so, I doubt the normal distribution would be much different from other groups. Even if it was, like you say, their upbringing and attitudes will play a role.

unable to become philosophers, brain surgeons, pioneers of civilization, etc. All of which were proved to be completely bunk.

Someone else raised those issues, and while that's outside my realm of experience (and I disagree with the "unable" part), I'm still curious why there's a dearth of of evidence of ancient civilization in the sub-Sahara.

I suspect it's probably environmental, and partly cultural.

>>184

I don't have to dance around anything because they aren't facts. First, I'd like you to genetically define to me what "race" is, oh wait- no, *you can't*. The stuff about "features" is a fucking load and doesn't equate to genetic proof of race, there aren't features that are "Exclusively white" or "Exclusively black" in a genetic sense.

Race is a fucking fever dream. It doesn't exist in nature- it exists in nurture (environment, perception of that environment) and whatever excuse or reason you're looking for a failed civilization is to be found in nurture. Many civilizations of many "races" have "failed" in a since due to modernism and these reasons were environmental, geo-political, cultural and circumstancial- not "natural".

Your very slant is based on race and a complex of race superiority- the idea that some "competition" is taking place and that "whites" are "winning". This is shown in your inherant preference towards white civialization. It's not for you to say which civilization compares to which or which was "better". Why would desert fairing people need insulated houses of stone? Where would they get this stone? Oh right...all the MOUNTIAN RANGES AND FOREST IN THE DESERT....LOL, You are an idiot. And you act as if the conflicts between these civilization was 100% over natural resources. There were other reasons as well, such as religion, the enforcement of ones culture as the "right culture" and factions' simply lust for more power and more terrority - that doesn't connect to the collective IQ of "Blacks" in any way.

But alright, I'll play your game.

Many sub-Sarahan African civilizations remained in hunting-gathering groups because the abundance of resources, the ability to easily survive in their enviroment gave them an isolation that was form of protection from invaders and the pressures of constant migration. It's also been said that in actuality Sub-Sarahan Africans were the first to produce complex metals. So the idea that they were unable to learn certain things from an intellectual stand point is completely false. By the 1400 BC Eastern Africans were producing steel in carbon furnances and the west didn't grasp steel until well into the 18th century.

Alot of these civilizations failed for the same reason any wide number of civilizations failed. War, famine, in-fighting, clashes with other civilizations- these aren't things unique to one race, even one culture. The idea that you interpet the failure of certain "black" civilizations as being genetic while ignoring the failures of "white", "latin" and  "asian" civilizations not only exposes your bias towards prejudice (instead of, you know, LOGIC) it shows either a gigantic ignorance of history- or a gross misinterpetation of history itself.

As another point "Blacks" as you call them (I suppose you mean Africans) dealt with colonization on pretty much a non-stop basis. The Romans, the Byzantines, The Greeks, The Arabs. And African colonization is inherantly unique in that it was the only civilization that was legally carved up by modern superpowers. Search for terms like: "Empire's for empires sake", "New Imperialism". The era of African colonization was marred by ultra-nationalism and racial supremist idelogies. (Past colonizers no doubt felt the same way) The idea that the Africans were somehow genetically deserving of this threatment is at the core of every issue with Black people as a WHOLE.

Consider how long Africa has truly been colonized, consider that these people have never been given a chance to unify and express their own solidarity because the greed and lust to control by other countries. Couple that with the fact that the main period of De-colonization didn't begin until AFTER World War 2 and didn't end until the 1980's and you get a very different picture painted.

You're asking African to do in 30 years what it took Japan 200 years to do. Africa has never been isolated, completely unified and it is overall larger and a hell of a lot more people.

Why do you choose to ignore THESE facts? Ignorance? Blind fear? Hate?

>>185

| Your basis for that assertion?

Once again:

>> The role that nuture plays is more prevalent because if genetics were "Stronger" in this case, then an uneducated Jew would score higher in an IQ test NO MATTER WHAT. That is simply not the case.

>> There is also the still very unresolved problem of using heritability stats because it's hard to distinguish the effect of genes or enviroment on a particular trait- in this case- intelligence. And you know what else? You can't make an inference on nature or nurture's influences over intellect based on a fucking IQ test.

Because...

>> IQ test measure acquired behaviors- the child's current level of observable performance which is affected by education and upbringing. I.E- NURTURE.



|| Isolation of variables is my opinion?


Your interpetation of those variables is an opinion. Given the reasons I outlined above- I interept them differently.


|| The effects of nature and nurture are intertwined, right?


Intertwined, like a shoe-string (nature) wrapped around a telephone pole (nuture). But yes, intertwined.


||  so this argument is another red herring.


Um, no it's not. It just completely debunks your bullshit so you're turning bitch and crying about it.

Your ability to learn is nurture as well. Learning isn't something inherant. You have to be taught to learn. If you take a child and put him in a room by himself without human interaction (without an enviroment)- what do you get? A wildchild. An animal. And the case of "wild children" have shown that the effects of being depraved of nurture is for the most-part is irreversable.  Modern-day "Wild Child" Genie is STILL not able to form conherant sentances. Genie could have the genes of an Ashkanzai Jew Kike Jap Chink Master Ninja and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

Regardless the test is still about environment, environment, environment- the test is designed for the nurture so while we can't say what sway nature held over the score, we can definately make an inference about how that persons intelligence was NURTURED.

Why is this so hard for you understand or accept?


|| I'm still curious why there's a dearth of of evidence of ancient civilization in the sub-Sahara.


There's not. You're just ignorant and haven't bothered to look.

You're not reading what I write, >>187. All of these points have already been dealt with in previous posts. Some several times.

>>188

How am I not reading what you write when I'm responding to direct quotes taken from your replies? You keep asking me how I arrive to the conclusions I have and I've outlined them several times. You just fail at text.

The problem is that you are simply unhappy with my opinion and you are now being purposefully dissonant. Furthermore, you are becoming prone to being repetitive while at the same claiming that "all of these points have be dealt with".

If that's true, then why do you keep asking me "what the basis for this assertion?" over and over?

Face it: The basis for *your* assertion is equal to roach carcass in tiny shit-coffin. I'll do you one better- if the scientific community- those who are responsible for testing intelligence thought that genetics was such a huge factor in ones IQ they would've made a heritability test. A bloodwork test that tells you who were your ancestors and bases your IQ on those results. But the thing is- that stuff truly doesn't matter compared to environment and it would need to operate under the PRE-CONCIEVED, UNPROVEN notion that certain races are *fundamentally* (not through good breeding like the Ashkanzai Jews) genetically superior or inferior.

THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY DON'T HAVE A TEST LIKE THIS.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that I'm 100% right. But I do think that given the nature of IQ testing and the way one aquires intelligence- it's fair to say that the role genetics plays is very small.

Now I DARE you to ask me what "my basis for this assertion" is.

HINT and PROTIP!!!

It's at the beginning of this fucking post.

Also- the post before >>187 gives very plausiable explainations for sub-saharan civilization and a little more insight into African Civilizations. If you care about anyone else view besides your own- feel free to read.

Otherwise: You go ahead and fuck right off.

P.S - Lurk moar.

niggerz iz niggerz

>>189
I'm responding to direct quotes taken from your replies?

You're responding with quotes I've already dealt with. If you read what I wrote you'd notice I found them wanting. I ask you a question, you reply, I note flaws in the reply, ask the question again, you reply with the same reply.

Seriously, look at the text in >>189. I've already covered that at least twice. Why are you trotting out the same arguments yet again? Why aren't you countering the arguments I've made about flaws in your previous arguments? You think repeated lines will fare any better?

Screw this. You win. We both have better things to do.

>>192
best post so far

>>193
TRUTH WAS TOLD

>>194
The difference being
>>193
is just some random poster who couldn't care less about the subject and you have posted upwards of 15 paragraphs saying the same crap over and over.

You have lost this argument anti-chan, the only way to gain respect from the liberals who now realise blacks are a race apart and less intelligent and succesful than other races and that they should respect only the few black people who's intelligence equals their's (usually conservatives blacks), is to admit that you were wrong and are now a conservative black who wants to look to the future where sentient human beings do not have to be burdenned with disability just to fuel some obsessive racist attitude about preserving the black race.

We'll all be brown with Asian features in a millenia anyway.

Now the real isn't intelligence. The question is what the dick and tit size will be.

>>195

LOL, dude you can't even fucking type a complete paragraph. If by "lost this arguement" you mean "clincially disected your ignoarant/racist bullshit, and as a result: won the argument and 11 golden internets" - then yeah that's exactly what happened. How very observant, faggot.

Where did I exactly lose? When I asked for you to genetically define race? (Undefinable) When I questioned why IQ stats would have any information about genetics when the tests themselves are completely based on nurture? When some retard said that blacks are unable to become philosophers or pioneer civilization or that "blacks" simply weren't *smart* enough to invent anything important? (Mastered Steel, actually had the first civilization, all before whitey did). Or what about when >>191 kept asking the same questions, and I kept giving him the same unrefutable (appearantly) answers? (You numbers are meaningless, kid. IQ tests are nurture tests, you can't infer anything genetic from a NURTURE test.)

I'm sick of this bullshit, you ask me to explain "why something is". I explain it- provide proof contrary to your world view and then you get upset and accuse me  "repeating myself" when you keep asking THE SAME QUESTIONS.

That's fine, thought. Really. Because the thing is:

People like you are not interested in the absolute truth. People like you are born for ignorance, born to be lead around by fear, by the feeling that YOU know something that no one else knows, that you're special. You don't want explainations...you want excuses that void you of any resposibility to your fellow man.

You think in simplistic terms of "liberal/conservative"- everything- absolutely all information must be presented to you as bite-sized ideas and mashed up verbal baby food. 

Conservative, Liberal, white, black- your stupidity and the reassurance that you will always thing of things in such childish terms insures that rich stay RICH. And keep you divided.

Stay dumb for me please. Because I will be relying on your poor judgement and poor self image (the only reason to EVER hate anyone else, really)- to sell you more crap you don't need.

Fucking babies. 

>>197
Man, that's some nice delusion you got going there. The guy burned out. You see it ALL the time when people argue against retards: at some point they realize its pointless. But retards never stop, that's what's scary about them. You're still regurgitating the same retarded shit.

But if it makes your ego feel better, believe you won. LOL INTERNETS.

>>198

They only thing this argument made me realize is how people like *you*, not the guy I was actually arguing with, will go to any lengths to ignore facts that endanger their world view and their over-inflated sense of self.

Look around fuckface, the big white world where your slanted views and ignorant perceptions of culture were widely accepted is now the equivalent of a sperm-dingleberry on your jizz-encrusted asshole.

Laugh it up, faggot. Your life is a countdown to the inevitable realization of fail and lose. No amount of forum postuering will save you from your fate of total obscurity.

>>199
Typical liberal.